The Grenfell inquiry’s findings have prompted responses from manufacturers involved in the cladding and insulation used in the tower.
- Arconic defends its Reynobond 55PE panels, asserting compliance with safety standards despite inquiry criticisms.
- Celotex acknowledges marketing inaccuracies of its RS5000 insulation but highlights post-tragedy improvements.
- Kingspan regrets historical marketing errors but denies these influenced the Grenfell tragedy.
- Manufacturers’ responses spotlight the contentious role of cladding and insulation in the fire’s propagation.
In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy inquiry, three manufacturers—Arconic, Celotex, and Kingspan—have issued statements in response to the report’s criticisms. The inquiry, led by Sir Michael Moore-Bick, scrutinised the safety and marketing practices of these companies concerning the materials used on Grenfell Tower, specifically cladding and insulation.
Arconic, supplier of the Reynobond 55PE panels, has described the fire as a ‘terrible tragedy’ while upholding its assertion that the material was safe. In its defence, Arconic stated that its subsidiary, AAP, had supplied aluminium composite panels that conformed to the design specifications and were certified for legal sale in multiple countries, including the UK. The report, however, concluded that Arconic was aware that claims about the fire performance of the Reynobond 55PE were inaccurate, especially concerning asset-fixed panels versus riveted ones. Nevertheless, Arconic maintains that it conducted regular third-party tests, making all results transparently available to its customers and certification bodies.
Celotex, which accounted for the majority of the building’s insulation with its RS5000 product, has been critiqued for manipulating marketing information to gain market entry. The inquiry identified that Celotex’s literature was misleading regarding RS5000’s compliance with safety tests for use in high-rise structures. The company has since undertaken a thorough internal review, making significant changes to its process controls, marketing approaches, and quality management. Celotex disclosed that independent testing confirmed compliance with safety criteria and continues to cooperate fully with the inquiry.
Similarly, Kingspan acknowledged inappropriate historical practices in marketing its K15 insulation. Despite accepting past failings, Kingspan argues these did not cause the tragedy, asserting that the K15 product, which constituted a minor proportion of the insulation used at Grenfell, was safe when correctly installed. The inquiry criticised Kingspan’s marketing tactics, which falsely promoted polymer-based insulation for high-rise buildings. Kingspan, however, emphasised enhancements and new compliance standards implemented globally since the incident, underlining that the PE ACM cladding—not its insulation—was central to the fire’s spread.
The responses from these manufacturers underscore the complex interplay between product safety, marketing, and regulatory compliance within construction.
